<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (12) TMI 726 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206415</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were not applicable as there was no intention to evade payment of duty by the appellants, a 100% EOU. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the significance of mens rea in penalty imposition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179905" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 726 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206415</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 were not applicable as there was no intention to evade payment of duty by the appellants, a 100% EOU. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the significance of mens rea in penalty imposition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>